On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2012, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Is "The 2.4.x branch is still CTR" still true? >> > >> > From STATUS: >> > >> > CURRENT RELEASE NOTES: >> > >> > * Forward binary compatibility is expected of Apache 2.4.x >> > releases, such that no MMN major number changes will occur after >> > 2.4.1. Such changes can only be made in the trunk. >> > >> > * All commits to branches/2.4.x must be reflected in SVN trunk, >> > as well, if they apply. Logical progression is commit to >> > trunk then merge into branches/2.4.x, as applicable. The 2.4.x >> > branch is still CTR. >> >> sf asked this too IIRC, and nobody responded. It seems that 2.2 >> went RTC about the same time as 2.2 was GA (r349819). Perhaps >> many would feel comfortable keeping it CTR for another 2.4.x >> release or so, but then we'd just have the discussion again, >> possibly in reaction to a commit that someone didn't like. > > I have proposed a middle ground in my other mail. I think it is useful > to keep CTR for simple fixes like these: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1293405 > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1293708 > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1293535 > >> >> RTC now: >> >> +1: trawick (as much to get the conversation over with as anything >> else ;) ) > > RTC now as default, but keep CTR until the next 2.4.x release for bug > fixes that are not complex or invasive and don't change any API: > > +1: sf
either works for me -- either normal RTC starting now or an agreement now for normal RTC once the next 2.4.x release is approved
